The Star System Doesn't Say It All

Do you have stars in your eyes? Specifically, do you concern yourself so much with the star ratings I award to movies that you give short shrift to the reviews?

This tendency among some movie fans has concerned me for a long time, but I couldn't figure out quite what to say about it until a recent telephone conversation put the matter in perspective.

A caller, whom I judged from the timbre of his voice to be a most pleasant man in his mid-to-late 20s, began by informing me that he generally makes his choice of what movie to see based on the star ratings. This has usually worked pretty well, he said, but not in the case of a certain recent comedy.

After seeing that the film was listed in this paper's Calendar section and noting that I had given it five stars (my highest rating), he and his wife headed to the theater where it was playing. Sadly, they could find little in the movie that was humorous or otherwise entertaining. The purpose of his call, he said, was to find out what merit I possibly could have seen in the production.

Of course, if he really wanted to know how I felt about the movie he should have read the review that was printed earlier. I say ''of course,'' but I gathered that the thought hadn't even occurred to him.

This incident, though perhaps extreme, does get at the reason for my concern. The star ratings seem almost to blind some readers to the reviews. In fact, I occasionally have gotten the feeling that even some faithful readers think primarily about the star ratings when deciding which film to see on a given evening.

This cautionary column, I hope, will help to rectify that situation. I will say it in capital letters: STAR RATINGS ARE ONLY REMINDERS. IF YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW WHAT I THINK, READ THE REVIEWS. Of course, you won't agree with the reviews in some (many?) cases. But a review should provide a sense of the reasoning behind the rating, and that may be helpful in making your moviegoing decisions.

Oscar report: If you've already been hit by Oscar fever, you'll want to know that nominating ballots for the Academy Awards are scheduled to be mailed today to the members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Nominations will be announced Feb. 5, with the winners stepping forward to claim their gold statuettes March 24.

Speaking of awards, a number of organizations have already offered their verdicts about what the best film of 1985 was. The New York Film Critics Circle picked John Huston's Prizzi's Honor and the National Board of Review chose Steven Spielberg's The Color Purple.

According to the National Society of Film Critics, the year's best film was Ran, a samurai version of King Lear, directed by Akira Kurosawa (Rashomon). Brazil, directed by Monty Python's Terry Gilliam, won three awards from the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, including best picture. Neither Ran nor Brazil has opened in Central Florida.

It's a little early to predict which film the motion-picture academy will select, but many of the movies honored by these other groups are likely to be nominated in top Academy Award categories. And if there's one thing these differences of opinion prove, it's that no movie can, objectively speaking, ever truly be called the best picture of the year.

Department of alternate titles: Out of Africa, another strong Oscar contender, tells the story of a woman from Denmark who owns a coffee plantation in Africa. Alternate title: Coffee and Danish.